The impediments to radical transformation
You are only aware now, or never
3rd Public Talk, Saanen
July 15, 1976
Questioner: Excuse me. Before you begin is it possible that we meditate together?
Krishnamurti: The lady asks before we begin to talk, would it be possible to meditate together. I am afraid that word meditation has been so misused, there are so many systems of meditation, the Tibetan, the Chinese, the Hindu, the Buddhist, I don't know what you mean by meditation. To me personally meditation is something that cannot be cultivated, practised, follow a system. It must come naturally, like a flower that blooms, you can't force it. So I don't know what you mean by meditation together.
Q: Talk together.
K: Talk together? We have been doing that for the last two times that we met here. Would you please sit down, we'll go on.
We were talking the last time that we met here, the day before yesterday, about whether there is any possibility in the whole structure and the nature of the mind, in which is included all the feelings, sensations, matter and so on, is there a field where thought, which is of time, has never touched. And it is very important, it seems to me, to find that out, not from what the speaker has told you but for yourself. To find out, or to discover naturally and easily without effort, through deep investigation and objective, non-neurotic observation, whether there is that area where all the conditioning doesn't exist at all. Because as we said the other day, when we live as we do in the area of knowledge, which is our conditioning, then all action, whatever it be, however noble, however idealistic, must invariably be mechanical.
For centuries upon centuries our brains have been cultivated to comply, to accept, or go to the opposite, not to comply not to accept, which is the same pattern, both the negative and positive. And therefore living in that area naturally all our actions must be mechanical, because our actions are based on either reward or on punishment. The reward which thought has projected, or the punishment which thought has projected, and thought is the response of knowledge and therefore mechanical. I hope we are meeting this. This is very important to understand because is there an area where there is non-mechanistic action, non-computerised action - not an idea? So it is very important to find out because our lives, as one observes, most unfortunately, are repetitive, both sexually, in every direction repetitive and conformative, or suppressing, or yielding to various demands, both psychological and physiological. And so when you observe your actions it is essentially based on the past as memory, which is mechanical; and to discover for oneself, not repeat what others have said, but for oneself - that is, oneself being the total essence of humanity. That one must be absolutely clear, that you are not a separate individual; you are the result of centuries of conditioning, like everyone else in the world. Conditioned in sorrow, to accept sorrow, to live with fear, to live with great anxiety, guilt - all the rest of it. So you are, in essence, humanity. And when you observe your own activity, both physiological and psychological, then you observe it is mechanical, always operating from the background of knowledge. Knowledge has its place, driving a car, doing certain skills, and so on and so on, which we don't have to go into. So there knowledge is essential. But knowledge in action, psychological action, becomes mechanical. Are we understanding each other? Please this is very important because we are going to go into something that you have to carefully examine, logically, sanely.
Because we find, as you observe throughout the world, very few human beings change radically. They change from one pattern to another pattern, from one religious sanction to another religious sanction, they become Tibetan monks, or Hindu monks, which is the same old pattern repeated over and over and over again. And as one observes one asks: why doesn't a human being, living as he does in confusion, disorder, always in conflict, always struggling, why doesn't he change basically? I don't know if you have asked that question of yourself. Which is: why don't you, as a human being, change most profoundly? Because one sees that one must change, to change not only the society, the corruption, the misery, the confusion, all that is going on outwardly, which is contributed by our inner state, which is our confusion, our disorder, and constant effort, effort, effort. Why do we live in this state? Do you understand my question? Why?
We have infinite knowledge about ourselves, from philosophers, psychologists and others. There are many facts and analysis of human beings. And we read them, we listen to them, but we go on in our own way, in the same old pattern. Why? Why don't you, as a human being, radically dispel all this? When you ask that question of yourself, you will say probably, 'I haven't got enough energy to battle all this'. Is that the question, that you have not enough energy? One has plenty of energy if one wants anything - if you want to climb those mountains, you climb; if you want plenty of money, you work; if you want your sexual appetites satisfied, you will drive; if you want to fulfil your ambitions, you are at it day and night; if you want to find some comfort in some religious teacher - and those are not religious teachers at all, there is no teacher and the taught in religious matters, please understand this basically. They travel miles, go through great discomfort, live in utter poverty, they have got plenty of energy; but somehow that energy is dissipated in doing all this, in doing something that is not at all worthwhile. The doing of something which is the repetition of a pattern which is not their own, it is a new pattern but it is still a pattern. So it is not a question of lack of energy. Right? Would you agree to that? Would you see that?
And is it a direction? You understand? To have a direction in life. Like you have a direction if you want to become an executive, a foreman, an expert, you have an end in view, a directive. And is there a directive in the psychological field at all? Please this is very important for us to understand. We are used to directives, purposes, an end. And we are asking: is there in the psychological field a purpose at all, an end in view, to be satisfied, to be conquered, to be achieved? So one must go into that question very deeply. That is: biologically there is an end - to keep the body healthy, eat the right food, not to destroy its native intelligence, to have food, clothes and shelter, and biologically to be secure, otherwise the brain can't function actively. So there is that biological necessity, which becomes a purpose, an end. Now we are asking: is it the biological instinct, moving towards the psychological state which says, 'I must have a purpose, what is the meaning of life, what is the end, what is it all about?' So biologically it may be the movement in the psychological area. And in the psychological area there may be no end at all. Do you understand? It may be our illusion, moving from one biological instinctive movement to a psychological field in which all movement is meaningless. So we are going to examine that.
We said human beings as they are conditioned now, demand, seek, pursue an end, apart from the biological. And we are asking if there is a psychological end at all, which may be enlightenment, god, noble life, you know all the rest of it. We are questioning all that. What is the psychological field? You understand? Inwardly, what is that? Is that filled by the movements of thought, the things of thought? Is that psychological field, which is our consciousness, human consciousness, with its content, is that the result of human struggle, pain, suffering, anxiety, which are all the movement of thought? So is that psychological field filled with the things of thought? And thought being matter. Please you may not have gone into this deeply, or you may have heard some scientists talking about it, but when one observes one can see very well that thought is a material process because knowledge is stored up in the brain, which is matter. So thought is a movement in time, a process of matter. Right? Sensation, which is the response, and all the rest of it. So there is in the brain a movement of thought all the time operating mechanistically, endlessly going on and on and on, while you are awake and also while you are asleep, dreams, all that is going on all the time. And that is our psyche. You understand? Realising the confusion within that area, thought says, 'Is there a purpose? Is there an end? Is there a goal? Is there a freedom?' Do you understand all this? I hope we are meeting all this, are we?
Please for this morning, or a few mornings, put away all your prejudices, all your anxieties, and demands, sexual, this, that - just listen. I am telling you something lovely, something which is effortless, something very beautiful. Just listen to it. Don't fight it, nor accept it, just, you know, as you listen to the river, just listen and then you will find if this is serious, true, it will take place, then it will blossom.
And our action is from this area of knowledge and therefore action is never complete, it is always regretting, always foreseeing, and not being able to fulfil, so there is always frustration. Right?
So we are asking: why do human beings, living in this chaos, misery, why is it they don't change? Some of you have listened to the speaker, unfortunately, for fifty years - why in the name of heaven haven't you changed? - radically, not superficially, just dropping one church, or this or that, that's all trivial stuff. So one demands why. We said it is not the lack of energy, you have got plenty of energy to come here, sit in this hot tent, travel all round and come and listen, you have got plenty of energy. Is it the lack of will? Will implies - no, let's begin slowly.
What is will? I will do this. I won't do that. I must and must not. What is this will, which plays such a tremendous part in our life? Please go into it with me, not accepting what the speaker is saying, find out for yourself in heaven's name what will is, because that plays such an extraordinary part in our life. I must give up smoking. I must not do this, and so on. What is that will? It is a movement, isn't it? Obviously. A movement in a direction, in a particular direction, either the negative direction, or the positive direction, but it is a direction. Please listen carefully. When there is a direction there is time involved. I am here and I must be there. I am angry, I must get rid of anger. So will is a movement in time. Right? Please. And what is the essence of that will? What brings about, or what generates that will? You understand my question? As long as you have a directive, an end, you must have a will. So what is the nature and the structure of will? When you say, 'I will do that' - what is that? And when you say, 'I will not do that', or mustn't do that, the movement, what is it that takes place? Is it opposing desires, the desire that says, 'I will', and the desire that says, 'I will not'? So desire, desire strengthened, concentrated, is will. Right? Opposing, or completely unified.
So what is desire? Please listen. You understand? We are used to being conditioned to exercise will. You smoke, begin to smoke gradually, it comes into a habit and you find it is necessary to give up that habit and you say, 'I must fight it. I must get rid of it' - for various biological, emotional, or psychological reasons. So will is the essence of desire. And what is desire? We are examining this because we are trying to find out why human beings don't change after millennia. You understand? Why live in this miserable way?
We said we have got plenty of energy. Now we are asking: is it the lack of will? And we are examining the nature of will, the structure of it, how it is formed, how it comes into being. So we said desire is the essence of will. So what is desire? Please examine through my words, the speaker's words, the issue in yourself. Desire is sensation, plus thought, plus the image which thought creates. You understand? Sensation, seeing something, then the thought taking over the observation, then thought creating the image. Sensation, plus thought, plus the image. Right? That is desire. From that all our activity of will takes place.
So the question is: as long as there is a will there is a directive and therefore movement towards that direction, positive or negative. And that is the pattern which you are used to. Having sensations, thought, and thought plus sensation creating the image, the image that I must be that, the image that I must not be that. You follow? All that is will. And we have exercised that will endlessly. The Socialists, the Communists, the religious people, the non-religious people, this movement is all the time going on. That is our conditioning. Which is: in the psychological field this movement of desire plus thought and image is constant. And as long as that mechanistic process goes on there cannot be change, there cannot be psychological, deep revolution. So how can this movement come to an end? You understand my question? I wonder if you understand all this? Is this becoming a bit difficult? You understand?
I am a human being, I have lived in the pattern of agony, suppression, quarrels, violence, bitterness, an occasional feeling of tenderness, occasional sense of something which I dreamt of, or I feel immense, all that, I have lived like that, as a human being. And I say to myself, 'Why am I living this way?' I know I will die. There is always death, but I live during that fifty, twenty, thirty, eighty years in a squalid pigsty way - why? Is it a lack of - I won't come to that yet. Is it lack of energy? I see I have got plenty of energy when I want to do something. Is it lack of will? And I begin to examine the will, the whole nature of will. And that is my habit, conditioning. Now I am questioning if I can break that habit, if that habit can be broken? That is, not to operate on will at all. You understand? Will only comes into being - please listen - comes into being when sensation, which is natural, which is acceptable, which is normal, sane, when that sensation is taken over by thought and that thought creates the image. So is it possible to be completely, wholly with sensation and no interference of thought?
You understand what I am saying? You see a beautiful house, a beautiful woman, a nice man, see the hills and the glory of the earth, when you observe there is tremendous sensation if you are at all watching. And then thought comes along and says, 'Yes, how marvellous', from that begins the image-making, the picture-making, the imagination. Now is it possible to have this complete sensation, which is normal, healthy, sane, and not let thought seep in? You understand? When thought seeps in you have the projection of tomorrow. I don't know if you see that? You see something extraordinarily beautiful, and all your senses are awake, then thought comes along and says, 'I must have it tomorrow', which is the image-making, the pleasure - you follow? - the delight of something beautiful, thought has taken over, created an image and therefore there is tomorrow. You understand? So the tomorrow is the process of time, which is thought. So in the psyche there is only sensation, no tomorrow. I wonder if you see this? This a little bit complex, is it? I see some people are not - let me explain it more.
We live in the hope of tomorrow. Right? Tomorrow to us is tremendously important, as yesterday, the images of yesterday, all that is as important, the past, as tomorrow. So we live in the past and tomorrow becomes tremendously significant. So psychologically we are saying: what is tomorrow? There is tomorrow which is Friday, we have to do certain things, but psychologically we are asking what is tomorrow? Tomorrow is the directive. Please do see the beauty of this. Tomorrow is the directive, the end, the goal; and so tomorrow psychologically assumes a great significance. And psychologically, inwardly, the tomorrow is the movement of thought in time, movement of thought as a material process in time. Tomorrow is a measurement. Right? Where there is a measurement there must be illusion. Oh, come on! I am afraid you don't see all this.
Look: measurement means comparing, doesn't it? I am not so beautiful as you are. I am not so intelligent as you are. Right? I want to be as intelligent as you are, which is measurement, comparison is measurement. So thought is a process of comparison, so thought is measurement. Which is: the directive from 'what is' to 'what should be'. Right? Now is there such thing as tomorrow in the psychological world? If I live with tomorrow then it is a mechanistic process. Right? Because thought has created tomorrow psychologically. That may be an illusion altogether. So I must, as a human being I must find out, because that is the pattern, that is conditioning, that is the accepted norm of existence, which may be totally absurd. Because I am concerned as a human being with the radical transformation, and we are examining the will, the will in action. And will in action means tomorrow, the directive. And is there such thing as tomorrow, psychologically, apart from biologically, physically? I need time, there is tomorrow, if I need to learn a language, if I have to learn to drive a car and so on and so on. So is there a tomorrow? There is no tomorrow when there is only sensation, and no image and no thought. I wonder if you capture it? Do you get it? You see people, specially so-called religious people, the monks throughout the world, have said, 'Sensation is totally wrong, control it, because sensation leads to desire, and desire means the woman or the man. God cannot accept a man who has desire' - you know, you have heard all this stuff put in different words. 'Therefore suppress desire, therefore control all your sensations, because if you don't you are in the devil's hands.'
So we are saying something quite opposite. Which is: sensation is natural, sensation must exist, does exist, it is a fact. If you don't have your sensations fully alert you are paralysed. You may be paralysed because we have learned the art of suppression. So there are all your sensations. When the sensations meet the movement of thought then there is tomorrow, because thought is a fragment. Thought is a fragment because it is based on yesterday's memory. Thought is never whole. So sensation totally is whole, therefore there is no tomorrow. Do you understand all this? No, don't agree with me. Please do it. See what happens when you do look at those hills, at anything. Look at it with all your senses fully awakened. Senses, not only your brain, your mind, because mind is part of the sensations, with all your sensations. Then you will see thought comes along and the image making begins, and tomorrow will happen. But when there is only complete sensation, without the movement of thought, there is only now, no tomorrow. Oh, I wonder if you see this?
So is it because we have no energy that we don't change? And we see we have got energy, whenever we want to do something we break everything to do it. And is it the lack of will? We see the mischief of will. So there is an action which is born, not out of will, but out of the perception of this movement of will. You understand? So there is an action which is not born from an image, which is fragmentary, but an action born out of total awareness, which is total sense of sensation. Please, this is very important all this. Don't misunderstand - if you misunderstand it is not my fault.
Then if it is not the lack of energy, then will has no place, then why is it that human beings haven't changed? Is it that they are always thinking of reward and punishment, which is the motive for our operation? We are brought up from childhood on that basis, reward if you are good, punished if you are not. Reward if you struggle, climb the ladder you are rewarded, you become the Executive, or President, or god knows what else, or the Bishop. So our conditioning is based on reward and punishment, which is the motive. A motive based on reward and punishment. Motive means a movement. The word itself means a movement. See what is implied. The moment you have a motive the movement is time. So you say, 'I will take time to change.' If it is not reward or punishment, then it is 'I am going to heaven' or whatever, reward. So where there is a motive there is a direction, and that direction is set by thought, and so tomorrow. So as long as there is a motive all action is incomplete, isn't it? If I love you because you give me food, this, that, and the comfort and all the rest of it, it is my motive, it isn't love.
So is there an action without motive? You understand my question? The moment I have a motive as a human being, whatever I do is partial, fragmentary, which will bring about regret, pain, suffering and all the rest of it. So I am asking as a human being: is there an action without a motive? Don't translate it into saying love, because that word is so abused, so heavily laden, don't bring in that word, we will discuss it another time. So is there an action in which there is no tomorrow, no will, only total energy? When you have total energy you have total action. You understand? I wonder if you get this?
Look: we are fragmented human beings. We go to the office, or the factory, or garden and that is a field by itself. And our family is a field by itself. My ambitions, my desires is another fragmentation. So we live in fragments. Right? That is a fact. And so any action born of that fragmentation must be inevitably incomplete, and therefore always destructive, frightening, regretting, in sorrow and all the rest of it. So I say as a human being: is there an action in which all this doesn't exist? You understand? You must ask that question. You are not asking it. I am asking it. If you ask it, not superficially because this is a tremendous thing this, to discover, you will find as a human being, a human being who represents the whole world of humanity, you will find there is an action which is not of tomorrow, the ideal, the directive, but an action that springs from that total energy which is total sensation.
So then what is it further that human beings for what reason further is it that human beings have not changed? You understand? We said it is lack of energy - is it lack of energy? Is it will? Is it incomplete action, with which you are familiar? And is there another thing that is impeding why human beings don't fundamentally change? Is there another? Of course there are many others. We will take the fundamental things, not superficial fragmentary things; energy, will, complete action and is it that in all of us there is a longing for something other than 'what is'? You understand my question? A longing of something beyond all this mess, a happiness, a deliverance, something that thought has never touched. You understand? Something eternal, nameless - it doesn't matter what name you give it. Is that one of the reasons that we don't change? You understand my question? I live a miserable, sordid life. And I see it round me, everybody more or less the same pattern, and my parents, grandparents, past, past, past parents, have lived the same way. And I feel I cannot escape from this. I feel that I am chained, bound. And I want something beyond all this. And that may be one of the reasons I don't change. It is very important.
Questioner: (In Italian.)
K: One moment. You understand? The priests throughout the world, the Christian, the Buddhist, the Hindu, the Tibetan priests, always said there is a promise of something greater. Do this and you will go to heaven, and if you don't you will go to hell. Which is interpreted in the Hindu in a different way, and so on and so on, which is irrelevant. So our minds are conditioned heavily by something other than 'what is'. The other is the promised land, the never-never land, the heaven, the enlightenment, the nirvana, the moksha of the Hindus. Because I don't know what to do with this, with 'what is', and my whole longing is that.
Put it in different ways: it may be the Communists may want perfect State, perfect environment, it is the same problem. You understand? It is the same issue only put in different words - the tomorrow. So that may be - I am asking - one of the fundamental reasons why human beings don't change, because they have this - the perfect highest principle, called in India Brahman, Nirvana by the Buddhists, heaven by the Christians and so on and so on and so on. That may be one of the fundamental reasons why human beings don't change. The perfect ideal, the perfect man or woman. Which means the 'what is' is not important but that is important. The perfect ideal is important, the perfect state is important, the nameless is important. So don't bother with 'what is', don't look at 'what is', but translate 'what is' in terms of 'what should be'. You understand all this? I hope I am getting at you. So we have created a duality: the 'what should be' and 'what is'. And we are saying that may be one of the great reasons why human beings don't change.
When there is this division between 'what is' and 'what should be', the highest, then there is conflict. Right? The Arab and the Jew - division. Wherever there is a division there must be conflict, that is a law. So we have been conditioned in this division, to accept this division, to live in this division, the 'what is' and 'what should be'. The 'what should be' has been brought about because I don't know how to deal with 'what is'. Or the 'what should be' is a lever - you understand? - to get rid of 'what is'. So it is a conflict. So why has the mind created the 'what should be'? You understand my question? And not be concerned totally with 'what is'? Why has the mind done this? Why has thought done this?
Thought, if it is at all aware, knows it has created 'what is', and thought says, 'This is a fragment, this is transitory. That is permanent' - you understand? This 'what is' is transitory and what thought has created - highest principle is permanent - thought thinks that. This is impermanent, that is permanent. Both the creation of thought. Right? God, saviour - all created by thought, the 'what should be'.
So thought has created this division, and then thought says, 'I cannot solve this, but I am going to approach that' When you see the truth of this, that doesn't exist. Only this remains. I wonder if you see this? Right? Do you see this? Thought has created the perfect ideal, the perfect State, the perfect Nirvana, the perfect Moksha, the perfect Heaven, thought has created it, because it does not know what to do with this, with 'what is', with my sorrow, with my agony, with my impenetrable ignorance. So thought has created this division. Do you see the truth of it? Not the verbal agreement, not the acceptable logical acceptance of this, but the truth of it? Then if you see the truth of it that doesn't exist, the ideal, the perfect, that doesn't exist. Because you know nothing about it, it is merely a projection of thought. So you have the energy then to deal with 'what is', instead of losing that energy in there, you have the energy to deal with what is happening. You see the difference? Oh, for god's sake! Do you see it? So you have this energy to deal with 'what is'. Then you have to learn how to look at 'what is'. You understand?
To observe 'what is'. Therefore you have no longer the duality of 'what should not be', only 'what is'. You are beginning to see the implications of it? When there is no 'what should be', the highest principle, you have only this. This is a fact. That is not fact. So you can deal with facts. When there is no duality there is only one thing, say for instance, violence. There is only violence, not non-violence. Right? The non-violence is 'what should be'. So when you see the truth of it there is only violence. Right? Now you have the energy to deal with that violence.
What is violence? Go into it with me for a moment. Violence: anger, competition, comparison, imitation - imitation being I am this, I must be that. So violence psychologically is comparison, imitation, various forms of conformity, essentially comparison - I am this, I must be that - that is violence. Not just throwing bombs, physical violence, that is something quite different. That is brought about by our rotten society, immoral society and all the rest of it - we won't go into that.
So there is only violence, this thing. What is important there? What is the nature of it? You understand? We have described, more or less, what is violence. You may not agree with the description, but you know what we mean by violence; jealousy, anger, hatred, annoyance, arrogance, vanity, all part of that structure of violence. That violence comes with the picture, with the image I have, that is part of my image. Now can the mind be free of the image? You understand? As long as there is an image, a picture, I must be violent. The picture is formed through sensation, plus thought and the image. You are following this? So a human being realises that as long as there is this image created through sensation plus thought, as long as that image, which is me, exists I must be violent. Violence means me and you, we and they. You know. So violence is there as long as this image exists. And that image is sensation and thought. So there is no image if there is only complete sensation. So you can deal then with 'what is'. You understand? I wonder if you understand this.
Look: I am angry, or I hate somebody - I don't but we will take that as an example. I hate somebody because he has done something ugly, hurt me and all the rest of it. My instinctual response, being a fairly intelligent, fairly normal human being, is to say, 'I mustn't hate him, it is bad.' I now have two images: I hate, and I mustn't hate. Two images. So there is a battle between these two images. One says, control, suppress, change, don't yield, yield - you follow? - that goes on all the time as long as two images exist. And I know the images are formed through - I have realised this very deeply - through sensation plus thought. That is a fact. I have realised that. So I put away non-hate - you understand? I have only this feeling of annoyance, anger, hatred. What is that feeling, created through the image, by some action of another. Right? You have done something to the image, which is me. And that image is hurt, and from reaction of that hurt is anger. And if I have no image - thought, sensation - if I have no image you don't touch me. You understand? There is no wounding, there is no hate, which is 'what is'. Now I know, I am aware of what to do with the 'what is'. You understand? Have you got something of this?
So I have found human beings don't change because they are wasting their energy; don't change because they are exercising their right of will, which they think is extraordinarily noble, which is called freedom of choice; and also they don't know what to do with 'what is' and therefore project 'what should be', and also maybe because that, the nirvana, the moksha, the heaven, is far more important than 'what is'. You follow? These are the blocks that human beings don't change, why they don't radically transform themselves. If you have understood this deeply, you understand, with your blood, with your heart, with all your senses, then you will see that there is an extraordinary transformation without the least effort.
Q: There is also a lack of will as something pathological. I wish to know if effort of will has a place in life.
K: Has will a place in life.
Would you give me two minutes rest?
Has will a place in life. What do you mean by life? What do we mean by life? Going to the office every day, having a profession, a career, the everlasting climbing the ladder, both religiously and mundanely, the fears, the agonies, the things that we have treasured, remembered, all that is life, isn't it? Right? All that is life, both the conscious as well as the hidden. The conscious which we know, more or less. And there is all the deep down hidden things in the cave of one's mind, in the deepest recesses of one's mind. All that is life. The illusion and the reality. The highest principle and the avoidance of 'what is'. The fear of death, fear of living, fear of relationship, all that. What place has will in all that? That is the question.
I say it has no place. Don't accept what I am saying please. I am not your authority, I am not your guru. All the content of one's consciousness, which is consciousness, is created by thought, which is desire and the image. And that is what has brought about such havoc in the world. Is there a way of living in this without the action of will? That is the gentleman's question.
I know this, as a human being I am fully aware of what is exactly going on within my consciousness: the confusion, the disorder, the chaos, the battle, the seeking for power, position, safety, security, prominence, fame - all that business; and I see thought has created all that - thought plus desire and the multiplication of images. And I say, 'What place has will in this?' It is will that has created this. Now can I live - please listen carefully - can I live in this without will? Biologically, physiologically I have to exercise a certain form of energy to learn a language, to do this and that. There must be a certain drive here. I see all this. And I realise, not as a verbal realisation, as a description, but the actual fact of it, as factual as a pain in the leg. I realise it and I say this is the product of thought as desire and will. Can I, as a human being, look at all this, transform this without will?
So what becomes important is what kind of observation is necessary. You understand? Observation, to see actually 'what is'. Is the mind capable of seeing actually 'what is'? Or does it always translate into 'what should be', the 'what should not be', I must suppress, I must not suppress, and all the rest of it? Right? So there must be freedom to observe otherwise I can't see. If I am prejudiced against you, or like you, I can't see you. So freedom is absolutely necessary to observe. Freedom from my prejudice, from my information, from what I have learned, to look without the idea. You understand? Just a minute I haven't finished. To look without the idea. As we said the other day, the word 'idea' comes from Greek, which means to observe - not what we have made of it. The root meaning of that word is to observe, to see. When we refuse to see we make an abstraction and make it into an idea.
So there must be freedom to observe, and in that freedom will is not necessary, there is just freedom to look. Which is - may I put it differently - if one makes a statement can you listen to it without making it into an abstraction? Do you understand my question? I make a statement, the speaker makes a statement as: the ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom. The speaker says that. Can you listen to that statement without making an abstraction of it? The abstraction being, is that possible? What do you get from it? How to do it? Those are all abstractions and not actually listening. So can you listen to that statement with all your senses? Which means with all your attention. Then you see the truth of it. And the perception of that truth is action in that chaos. Got it?
That's enough for this morning, isn't it?